McGregor red card

Stevio · Joined: 17 Aug 2007 Posts: 751

How did Rangers not win the appeal against McGregor's red card? He got the
ball, the replays confirm it. Where is the debate? How can the red card not
have been rescinded?

Archived from group: uk>sport>football>clubs>rangers

Jonbhoy · Joined: 17 Aug 2007 Posts: 170

"Stevio" wrote in message $nG4.831@newsfe6-win.ntli.net...
> How did Rangers not win the appeal against McGregor's red card? He got the
> ball, the replays confirm it. Where is the debate? How can the red card
> not have been rescinded?

Because it was a red card offence!

JB

Stevio · Joined: 17 Aug 2007 Posts: 751

"Jonbhoy" wrote
> "Stevio" wrote in message
>> How did Rangers not win the appeal against McGregor's red card? He got
>> the ball, the replays confirm it. Where is the debate? How can the red
>> card not have been rescinded?
>
> Because it was a red card offence!

He played the ball! All this nonsense about whether playing the ball matters
is the biggest load of nonsense I've heard. If you play the ball first in a
tackle like he did then it is a good tackle. If you say otherwise then you
really are going down the road to a non-contact sport. If you want to get
technical, since McGregor played the ball last before the two players legs
hit each other, it should actually be a free kick to Rangers! How the ref
cannot rescind the red card is beyond comprehension.

Jonbhoy · Joined: 17 Aug 2007 Posts: 170

"Stevio" wrote in message $wH5.1173@newsfe1-gui.ntli.net...
> "Jonbhoy" wrote
>> "Stevio" wrote in message
>>> How did Rangers not win the appeal against McGregor's red card? He got
>>> the ball, the replays confirm it. Where is the debate? How can the red
>>> card not have been rescinded?
>>
>> Because it was a red card offence!
>
> He played the ball! All this nonsense about whether playing the ball
> matters is the biggest load of nonsense I've heard. If you play the ball
> first in a tackle like he did then it is a good tackle. If you say
> otherwise then you really are going down the road to a non-contact sport.
> If you want to get technical, since McGregor played the ball last before
> the two players legs hit each other, it should actually be a free kick to
> Rangers! How the ref cannot rescind the red card is beyond comprehension.

Theres a few on the NG's that had it have been Boruc would have been
screaming it was assault!!! The laws state it was a red card otherwise it
would have been overturned.Only going by what i remember seeing it on the
day but didnt he slide out with studs showing? That combined with last man
is enough for a sending off even if he connected fully with the ball first!
(Is there a clip on the net?) . There was contact but ill agree it wasnt a
huge amount,also agree that its getting silly the amount of contact that
seems to injury a player in regards to say 15 years ago !

JB

Stevio · Joined: 17 Aug 2007 Posts: 751

"Jonbhoy" wrote
> Theres a few on the NG's that had it have been Boruc would have been
> screaming it was assault!!! The laws state it was a red card otherwise it
> would have been overturned.Only going by what i remember seeing it on the
> day but didnt he slide out with studs showing?

Just because some people say if it was Boruc then this, that or the next
thing, does that mean they are right? No. So ignore them. If it was Boruc,
Craig Gordon, Paddy Bonner or Alan Rough it wouldn't matter, it should not
have been a red card. The laws do not state that winning the ball in a
tackle is a red card offence! The ref was wrong at the time and he was wrong
in not overturning it.

> That combined with last man is enough for a sending off even if he
> connected fully with the ball first!

Denying a goalscoring opportunity (last man whatever) is only a red card
offence IF YOU COMMIT A FOUL! (Shouting intentional lol.)

If a goalkeeper does a great save to "deny a goalscoring opportunity" is it
a red card? Of course not! But that is almost equivalent to the argument you
are making (except for the bit about studs showing, which I am pretty sure
they were not, and I do not believe studs showing is why the ref sent him
off).

> (Is there a clip on the net?) . There was contact but ill agree it wasnt a
> huge amount,also agree that its getting silly the amount of contact that
> seems to injury a player in regards to say 15 years ago !

The amount of contact doesn't really matter, he played the ball and it even
changed the direction of the ball. As I say before, if we are really going
down the route of playing the ball doesn't actually matter if you happen to
make contact with the man afterwards, then Platini is going to get his wish
of many years ago when he suggested tackling should be banned. Football will
become non-contact.

As I said before, if someone plays the ball in a tackle, that means that any
contact immediately afterwards technically would be a foul to him. A foul is
not given but that is why people say that if you get the ball first it
doesn't really matter if you go through the man afterwards. It makes perfect
sense. Are there exceptions? Yes. I saw a guy on the TV last week clear a
ball (Robert Huth I'm sure) and then follow through with a straight leg into
the guy's midriff. Tackles that are dangerous (the common two footed
straight legged lunge) are also exceptions, but not what McGregor did.

Jonbhoy · Joined: 17 Aug 2007 Posts: 170

"Stevio" wrote in message $NL3.2612@newsfe2-gui.ntli.net...
> "Jonbhoy" wrote
>> Theres a few on the NG's that had it have been Boruc would have been
>> screaming it was assault!!! The laws state it was a red card otherwise it
>> would have been overturned.Only going by what i remember seeing it on the
>> day but didnt he slide out with studs showing?
>
> Just because some people say if it was Boruc then this, that or the next
> thing, does that mean they are right? No. So ignore them. If it was Boruc,
> Craig Gordon, Paddy Bonner or Alan Rough it wouldn't matter, it should not
> have been a red card. The laws do not state that winning the ball in a
> tackle is a red card offence! The ref was wrong at the time and he was
> wrong in not overturning it.

The Boruc thing i said firmly tongue in cheek!!! But its not about just
winning the ball is it,if an outfield player went chest high with a flying
karate kick and kicked the ball before connecting with a player would that
not be a foul?

>> That combined with last man is enough for a sending off even if he
>> connected fully with the ball first!
>
> Denying a goalscoring opportunity (last man whatever) is only a red card
> offence IF YOU COMMIT A FOUL! (Shouting intentional lol.)

He took the player out who was in a goal scoring oppurtunity,hence red card.

> If a goalkeeper does a great save to "deny a goalscoring opportunity" is
> it a red card? Of course not! But that is almost equivalent to the
> argument you are making (except for the bit about studs showing, which I
> am pretty sure they were not, and I do not believe studs showing is why
> the ref sent him off).

Oh come on,its hardly a great save! It was a last ditch attempt! As i said
though id like to see a replay clip as im only going by what i saw on sunday
with a nasty bout of flu clearing so would like to see it again.

>> (Is there a clip on the net?) . There was contact but ill agree it wasnt
>> a huge amount,also agree that its getting silly the amount of contact
>> that seems to injury a player in regards to say 15 years ago !
>
> The amount of contact doesn't really matter, he played the ball and it
> even changed the direction of the ball. As I say before, if we are really
> going down the route of playing the ball doesn't actually matter if you
> happen to make contact with the man afterwards, then Platini is going to
> get his wish of many years ago when he suggested tackling should be
> banned. Football will become non-contact.
>
> As I said before, if someone plays the ball in a tackle, that means that
> any contact immediately afterwards technically would be a foul to him. A
> foul is not given but that is why people say that if you get the ball
> first it doesn't really matter if you go through the man afterwards. It
> makes perfect sense. Are there exceptions? Yes. I saw a guy on the TV last
> week clear a ball (Robert Huth I'm sure) and then follow through with a
> straight leg into the guy's midriff. Tackles that are dangerous (the
> common two footed straight legged lunge) are also exceptions, but not what
> McGregor did.

But as you said he may have moved the ball but he didnt clear it and had the
guy been able to carry on his run would have scored , its simple as that!

JB

Moody Marco · Joined: 17 Aug 2007 Posts: 2149

"Jonbhoy" wrote in message @giganews.com...
>
> "Stevio" wrote in message
> $wH5.1173@newsfe1-gui.ntli.net...
>> "Jonbhoy" wrote
>>> "Stevio" wrote in message
>>>> How did Rangers not win the appeal against McGregor's red card? He got
>>>> the ball, the replays confirm it. Where is the debate? How can the red
>>>> card not have been rescinded?
>>>
>>> Because it was a red card offence!
>>
>> He played the ball! All this nonsense about whether playing the ball
>> matters is the biggest load of nonsense I've heard. If you play the ball
>> first in a tackle like he did then it is a good tackle. If you say
>> otherwise then you really are going down the road to a non-contact sport.
>> If you want to get technical, since McGregor played the ball last before
>> the two players legs hit each other, it should actually be a free kick to
>> Rangers! How the ref cannot rescind the red card is beyond comprehension.
>
> Theres a few on the NG's that had it have been Boruc would have been
> screaming it was assault!!! The laws state it was a red card otherwise it
> would have been overturned.Only going by what i remember seeing it on the
> day but didnt he slide out with studs showing? That combined with last man

Where in the rules does it say anything about "last man"?

Stevio · Joined: 17 Aug 2007 Posts: 751

"Jonbhoy" wrote
> The Boruc thing i said firmly tongue in cheek!!! But its not about just
> winning the ball is it,if an outfield player went chest high with a flying
> karate kick and kicked the ball before connecting with a player would that
> not be a foul?

That isn't what McGregor did, not even close. He won the ball fairly. Are
you seriously saying that from now on you can only tackle someone as long as
there is no physical contact afterwards? Everyone who has played the game
knows that a good tackle is when you win the ball first. If in the process
you get the man too, that doesn't matter, because you played the ball. As I
said before, if you want to get technical, the reason why if you get the man
afterwards is because by playing the ball last, you had possession of the
ball (in a sense) and it is therefore really the responsibility of the
player you just tackled to get out the way. If anything, the player that
lost the ball has fouled the defender by not getting his legs out the way of
the tackler who is playing the ball (if you want to get technical).

>>> That combined with last man is enough for a sending off even if he
>>> connected fully with the ball first!
>>
>> Denying a goalscoring opportunity (last man whatever) is only a red card
>> offence IF YOU COMMIT A FOUL! (Shouting intentional lol.)
>
> He took the player out who was in a goal scoring oppurtunity,hence red
> card.

It doesn't matter if you deny a goal scoring opportunity if you do it
legally! That was the tongue in cheek point I was trying to make below.

>> If a goalkeeper does a great save to "deny a goalscoring opportunity" is
>> it a red card? Of course not! But that is almost equivalent to the
>> argument you are making (except for the bit about studs showing, which I
>> am pretty sure they were not, and I do not believe studs showing is why
>> the ref sent him off).
>
> Oh come on,its hardly a great save! It was a last ditch attempt! As i said
> though id like to see a replay clip as im only going by what i saw on
> sunday with a nasty bout of flu clearing so would like to see it again.

If McManus gets a header in at goal against McGregor in an Old Firm game,
and McGregor catches it, McGregor has "denied a goal scoring oppurtunity",
but it's not a red card. If McDonald is running through on goal with only
Weir to beat, and Weir takes the ball of him, Weir has "denied a goal
scoring oppurtunity", but it's not a red card. It's only a red card if they
commit an offence while "denying a goal scoring oppurtunity" lol!

> But as you said he may have moved the ball but he didnt clear it and had
> the guy been able to carry on his run would have scored , its simple as
> that!

That's a wee shame for the guy, that he wasn't smart enough to get out the
way of the tackle then isn't it? He shouldn't have ran into McGregor's legs
while McGregor was in the process of playing the ball Smile

Was the tackle dangerous? No.
Did McGregor play the ball? Yes.
Was it a red card? No.
Has the referee made a mess of it? Yes (twice now).

This is as basic as it gets. It shouldn't even be a debate. As soon as the
appeal was looked at the red card should have been rescinded.

Jonbhoy · Joined: 17 Aug 2007 Posts: 170

"Moody Marco" wrote in message @giganews.com...
>
> "Jonbhoy" wrote in message
> @giganews.com...
>>
>> "Stevio" wrote in message
>> $wH5.1173@newsfe1-gui.ntli.net...
>>> "Jonbhoy" wrote
>>>> "Stevio" wrote in message
>>>>> How did Rangers not win the appeal against McGregor's red card? He got
>>>>> the ball, the replays confirm it. Where is the debate? How can the red
>>>>> card not have been rescinded?
>>>>
>>>> Because it was a red card offence!
>>>
>>> He played the ball! All this nonsense about whether playing the ball
>>> matters is the biggest load of nonsense I've heard. If you play the ball
>>> first in a tackle like he did then it is a good tackle. If you say
>>> otherwise then you really are going down the road to a non-contact
>>> sport. If you want to get technical, since McGregor played the ball last
>>> before the two players legs hit each other, it should actually be a free
>>> kick to Rangers! How the ref cannot rescind the red card is beyond
>>> comprehension.
>>
>> Theres a few on the NG's that had it have been Boruc would have been
>> screaming it was assault!!! The laws state it was a red card otherwise it
>> would have been overturned.Only going by what i remember seeing it on the
>> day but didnt he slide out with studs showing? That combined with last
>> man
>
> Where in the rules does it say anything about "last man"?

If the last man between player and goal commits a foul on the player with
the ball thought it was classified as an auto red and not a yellow.

JB

Angof · Joined: 02 Feb 2008 Posts: 6

"Jonbhoy" wrote in message @giganews.com...
>
> "Moody Marco" wrote in message
> @giganews.com...
>>
>> "Jonbhoy" wrote in message
>> @giganews.com...
>>>
>>> "Stevio" wrote in message
>>> $wH5.1173@newsfe1-gui.ntli.net...
>>>> "Jonbhoy" wrote
>>>>> "Stevio" wrote in message
>>>>>> How did Rangers not win the appeal against McGregor's red card? He
>>>>>> got the ball, the replays confirm it. Where is the debate? How can
>>>>>> the red card not have been rescinded?
>>>>>
>>>>> Because it was a red card offence!
>>>>
>>>> He played the ball! All this nonsense about whether playing the ball
>>>> matters is the biggest load of nonsense I've heard. If you play the
>>>> ball first in a tackle like he did then it is a good tackle. If you say
>>>> otherwise then you really are going down the road to a non-contact
>>>> sport. If you want to get technical, since McGregor played the ball
>>>> last before the two players legs hit each other, it should actually be
>>>> a free kick to Rangers! How the ref cannot rescind the red card is
>>>> beyond comprehension.
>>>
>>> Theres a few on the NG's that had it have been Boruc would have been
>>> screaming it was assault!!! The laws state it was a red card otherwise
>>> it would have been overturned.Only going by what i remember seeing it on
>>> the day but didnt he slide out with studs showing? That combined with
>>> last man
>>
>> Where in the rules does it say anything about "last man"?
>
> If the last man between player and goal commits a foul on the player with
> the ball thought it was classified as an auto red and not a yellow.
>
> JB
>

I think it's something about denying a clear goal scoring opportunity and
not to do with the last man. Not 100% sure though.

Jonbhoy · Joined: 17 Aug 2007 Posts: 170

"Angof" wrote in message @corp.supernews.com...
>
> "Jonbhoy" wrote in message
> @giganews.com...
>>
>> "Moody Marco" wrote in message
>> @giganews.com...
>>>
>>> "Jonbhoy" wrote in message
>>> @giganews.com...
>>>>
>>>> "Stevio" wrote in message
>>>> $wH5.1173@newsfe1-gui.ntli.net...
>>>>> "Jonbhoy" wrote
>>>>>> "Stevio" wrote in message
>>>>>>> How did Rangers not win the appeal against McGregor's red card? He
>>>>>>> got the ball, the replays confirm it. Where is the debate? How can
>>>>>>> the red card not have been rescinded?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Because it was a red card offence!
>>>>>
>>>>> He played the ball! All this nonsense about whether playing the ball
>>>>> matters is the biggest load of nonsense I've heard. If you play the
>>>>> ball first in a tackle like he did then it is a good tackle. If you
>>>>> say otherwise then you really are going down the road to a non-contact
>>>>> sport. If you want to get technical, since McGregor played the ball
>>>>> last before the two players legs hit each other, it should actually be
>>>>> a free kick to Rangers! How the ref cannot rescind the red card is
>>>>> beyond comprehension.
>>>>
>>>> Theres a few on the NG's that had it have been Boruc would have been
>>>> screaming it was assault!!! The laws state it was a red card otherwise
>>>> it would have been overturned.Only going by what i remember seeing it
>>>> on the day but didnt he slide out with studs showing? That combined
>>>> with last man
>>>
>>> Where in the rules does it say anything about "last man"?
>>
>> If the last man between player and goal commits a foul on the player with
>> the ball thought it was classified as an auto red and not a yellow.
>>
>> JB
>>
>
> I think it's something about denying a clear goal scoring opportunity and
> not to do with the last man. Not 100% sure though.

Hmmmmm could be seen as the same thing i suppose,if your going to foul the
guy your going to stop him from scoring . Whenever i played i always played
it as the last man had to be ultra careful as the ref was always going to
look for the contact and being fair even sunday league stuff its only ever
going to be the last guy that ends up in trouble!

JB

\\¯`·.¸biz¸.·´¯/ · Joined: 18 Jan 2008 Posts: 29

It was noted in: (O_adnTNfF_gtSDTanZ2dneKdnZydnZ2d@giganews.com),
that Jonbhoy spouted forth their words of
wisdom...:

> "Angof" wrote in message
> @corp.supernews.com...
>>
>> "Jonbhoy" wrote in message
>> @giganews.com...
>>>
>>> "Moody Marco" wrote in message
>>> @giganews.com...
>>>>
>>>> "Jonbhoy" wrote in message
>>>> @giganews.com...
>>>>>
>>>>> "Stevio" wrote in message
>>>>> $wH5.1173@newsfe1-gui.ntli.net...
>>>>>> "Jonbhoy" wrote
>>>>>>> "Stevio" wrote in message
>>>>>>>> How did Rangers not win the appeal against McGregor's red card? He
>>>>>>>> got the ball, the replays confirm it. Where is the debate? How can
>>>>>>>> the red card not have been rescinded?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Because it was a red card offence!
>>>>>>
>>>>>> He played the ball! All this nonsense about whether playing the ball
>>>>>> matters is the biggest load of nonsense I've heard. If you play the
>>>>>> ball first in a tackle like he did then it is a good tackle. If you
>>>>>> say otherwise then you really are going down the road to a
>>>>>> non-contact
>>>>>> sport. If you want to get technical, since McGregor played the ball
>>>>>> last before the two players legs hit each other, it should actually
>>>>>> be
>>>>>> a free kick to Rangers! How the ref cannot rescind the red card is
>>>>>> beyond comprehension.
>>>>>
>>>>> Theres a few on the NG's that had it have been Boruc would have been
>>>>> screaming it was assault!!! The laws state it was a red card otherwise
>>>>> it would have been overturned.Only going by what i remember seeing it
>>>>> on the day but didnt he slide out with studs showing? That combined
>>>>> with last man
>>>>
>>>> Where in the rules does it say anything about "last man"?
>>>
>>> If the last man between player and goal commits a foul on the player
>>> with
>>> the ball thought it was classified as an auto red and not a yellow.
>>>
>>> JB
>>>
>>
>> I think it's something about denying a clear goal scoring opportunity and
>> not to do with the last man. Not 100% sure though.
>
> Hmmmmm could be seen as the same thing i suppose,if your going to foul the
> guy your going to stop him from scoring . Whenever i played i always
> played
> it as the last man had to be ultra careful as the ref was always going to
> look for the contact and being fair even sunday league stuff its only ever
> going to be the last guy that ends up in trouble!
>
> JB

Aye.. but... the argument isn't whether that rule is *valid* or not!

MacGregor played the ball first. You see those tackles ALL the time
elsewhere on the park.
They look sore ones because there *is* contact, but in the event of the ball
being taken off of the opponent, most commentators react with a resounding
"ooph! Good Tackle, but he felt that one!" or words to that effect.

So last man or not it was a GOOD TACKLE, and therefore an oversight by the
referee.

It doesn't really matter in the grand scheme of things anyway. If it had
been overturned you's cellic fans would just have another reason to whinge
about the 'unfairness' of not winning the league come the end of the
season... Wink

Probably surmising that the overturned decision was decided in some 'lodge'
of some sort Razz

biz

--
www.bebo.com/bizenya79
www.myspace.com/bizenya
Lightning strikes about 6,000 times per minute on this planet!

Jonbhoy · Joined: 17 Aug 2007 Posts: 170

Snipped

>> Hmmmmm could be seen as the same thing i suppose,if your going to foul
>> the
>> guy your going to stop him from scoring . Whenever i played i always
>> played
>> it as the last man had to be ultra careful as the ref was always going to
>> look for the contact and being fair even sunday league stuff its only
>> ever
>> going to be the last guy that ends up in trouble!
>>
>> JB
>
> Aye.. but... the argument isn't whether that rule is *valid* or not!

That was a response to angof,and if the rule is valid then it does matter.

> MacGregor played the ball first. You see those tackles ALL the time
> elsewhere on the park.

Here we go again!!! But elsewhere on the pitch is hardly going to affect the
outcome the same way it is if its one on one with the keeper.Some refs would
give it elsewhere on the pitch,some wouldnt...thats the inconsistency of
refing sadly.

> They look sore ones because there *is* contact, but in the event of the
> ball being taken off of the opponent, most commentators react with a
> resounding "ooph! Good Tackle, but he felt that one!" or words to that
> effect.

Ok look at it this way,if the other lad had not been touched and was on his
feet do you think the ball would have been safe and cleared?

> So last man or not it was a GOOD TACKLE, and therefore an oversight by the
> referee.

Disagree,but you know why so wont type it all again.Its going in
circles,rangers fans saying its an injustice and everyone else feeling its
fair enough so never going to really agree!

> It doesn't really matter in the grand scheme of things anyway. If it had
> been overturned you's cellic fans would just have another reason to whinge
> about the 'unfairness' of not winning the league come the end of the
> season... Wink

> Probably surmising that the overturned decision was decided in some
> 'lodge' of some sort Razz

Aye and as we speak no doubt certain posters shall be looking like crazy on
google to check if the ref has ever taken a holiday in rome!!! Wink

JB

Stevio · Joined: 17 Aug 2007 Posts: 751

"Jonbhoy" wrote
> Ok look at it this way,if the other lad had not been touched and was on
> his feet do you think the ball would have been safe and cleared?

Jonbhoy you seem to be ignoring this basic point - that it was a good
tackle! So it doesn't matter where the ball went because it wasn't a foul.
It wasn't McGregor's fault Shields fell down because McGregor played the
ball first. He therefore technically had possession of the ball last
therefore any contact between the two players is Shields fault technically.

That's why people talk about getting the ball first and the man second. If
you get the ball first you can take anything else out that gets in the way
of your leg, as long as there isn't time for you to straighten the leg up
and stick it in a guy's stomach like Huth did recently, and you did not
commit the tackle in a dangerous way (e.g. two footed straight legged).
McGregor's tackle was fine as it did neither of these things.

\\¯`·.¸biz¸.·´¯/ · Joined: 18 Jan 2008 Posts: 29

It was noted in: (1tKdnUX7NrTrQDTaRVnyhQA@giganews.com),
that Jonbhoy spouted forth their words of
wisdom...:

> Snipped
>
>>> Hmmmmm could be seen as the same thing i suppose,if your going to foul
>>> the
>>> guy your going to stop him from scoring . Whenever i played i always
>>> played
>>> it as the last man had to be ultra careful as the ref was always going
>>> to
>>> look for the contact and being fair even sunday league stuff its only
>>> ever
>>> going to be the last guy that ends up in trouble!
>>>
>>> JB
>>
>> Aye.. but... the argument isn't whether that rule is *valid* or not!
>
> That was a response to angof,and if the rule is valid then it does matter.

Only if the argument was that it should have been a yellow instead of a red
for a definite foul.

I still think your argument is coming across as "if you are the last man,
you are *not allowed* to make a tackle in any instance"

>
>> MacGregor played the ball first. You see those tackles ALL the time
>> elsewhere on the park.
>
> Here we go again!!! But elsewhere on the pitch is hardly going to affect
> the
> outcome the same way it is if its one on one with the keeper.Some refs
> would
> give it elsewhere on the pitch,some wouldnt...thats the inconsistency of
> reffing sadly.

I thought he reffed quite happily! Razz

>
>> They look sore ones because there *is* contact, but in the event of the
>> ball being taken off of the opponent, most commentators react with a
>> resounding "ooph! Good Tackle, but he felt that one!" or words to that
>> effect.
>
> Ok look at it this way,if the other lad had not been touched and was on
> his
> feet do you think the ball would have been safe and cleared?

Maybe if MacGregor had the pinpoint tackling accuracy of a world class
defender, he might have somehow nicked the ball away from the guy while
avoiding going through on him. But he did what he set out to do - he DID
nick the ball away from the attacker, the resulting follow through is as
illegal as it is avoidable.

>
>> So last man or not it was a GOOD TACKLE, and therefore an oversight by
>> the
>> referee.
>
> Disagree,but you know why so wont type it all again.Its going in
> circles,rangers fans saying its an injustice and everyone else feeling its
> fair enough so never going to really agree!

I know I was gonna say that myself, you and Stevio could have a marathon
thread on your hands here! lol

>
>> It doesn't really matter in the grand scheme of things anyway. If it had
>> been overturned you's cellic fans would just have another reason to
>> whinge
>> about the 'unfairness' of not winning the league come the end of the
>> season... Wink

>> Probably surmising that the overturned decision was decided in some
>> 'lodge' of some sort Razz

>
> Aye and as we speak no doubt certain posters shall be looking like crazy
> on
> google to check if the ref has ever taken a holiday in rome!!! Wink

You know its true! Razz

>
> JB

biz

--
www.bebo.com/bizenya79
www.myspace.com/bizenya
I used to have an open mind but my brains kept falling out.

Season Card I dunno how many of you lot are experiencing this, but I haven't been able to swipe my season card at the turnstyle for the last three matches. I got in OK, but was told to go to the ticket office to get it changed. Anyway, off I trot today (the first tim

Name of Card Game? We all know Arsenal FC to be the equiv of the King of Clubs in a card deck :o) Can someone identify this card game please - many moons ago we'd play it at work at Chrissy time. Usually four would play (or more but the less cards dealt at start). At the st

That bitter and his Amber Card.... Dont know if any of you were watching Youre on Sky sports tonight, but one of the callers suggested an amber card. Used for penalties, any foul in the box would see the offender be shown an amber card. In the event of a penalty miss, the player would be s

Residents give Everton FC stadium the red card CAMPAIGNERS have gathered 1,400 objections to Everton FC’s planned move to Kirkby. They have handed almost 1,100 letters and a petition comprising more than 300 names to Knowsley council as the battle for Kirkby town centre continues. Officials have been

BMG supporters - I liked this The Liverpool fans were truly astounded to see Borussia supporters in their last home game of the Bundesliga 2006/2007 season wearing all types of old and new Liverpool FC shirts, a tradition that goes back many years in Gladbach.